oakapple
-
Posts
3,476 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by oakapple
-
-
Eleven Madison would be at least double the budget.Eleven Madison has a private room that meets all of your requirements, but probably not your budget. Still may be worth a call. -
As There wouldn't be a journalistically defensible reason to re-review Per Se right now. Chef Benno is rumored to be leaving, but even if that happens, Frank's time will be up too soon to review Benno's successor.I would love to read a follow-up Bruni review as his last big 4 star review, but I have a feeling that will happen somewhere, if not Per Se.I do agree that Bruni is itching to give out four stars one more time, but it's not clear who it would be (see speculation over at Eater.com
). -
I almost feel like asking if you're a Chowhound moderator, as they take that absolutist position.The moment a 'comp' occurs any vestige of objectivity goes out the window. No matter how hard the author tries to avoid it there has been an influence upon his or her opinion. Disclosing the comp does not really help. After all what is a comp other than a form of payment?However, I disagree. Information never hurt anybody. As long as I am aware of the circumstances, I can judge for myself whether the review is credible. And as Sneakeater noted, there are a wide variety of circumstances, ranging from the true quid pro quo, down to a comped drink that could have been given out for any number of non-review-related reasons.
What's more, reviews of fully-compled meals sometimes contain useful, purely factual information—for instance, that the restaurant exists, that it is open at particular hours, that it serves certain items on its menu. Sometimes, a comped review has brought a restaurant to my attention that I was otherwise unaware of. I then start looking around for other (more objective) reviews to see if the place is worth considering.
-
While you are clarifying your objectives, does $60–80 include tax, tip, and alcohol? There is a huge difference between $60 including tax, tip & drinks; and $80 with tax, tip & drinks extra.
-
That's right. Unfortunately, even in this recession environment, $60–80 all-inclusive is budget dining by NY standards. You won't get "elegant, modern, visually stunning," and of course great food, for that price.
-
The conventional wisdom is that Bruni was recognized around 2/3rds of the time. If you figure that he visited each restaurant at least 3 times before reviewing, it means that the average restaurant had one truly anonymous visit. Of course, that encompasses a wide range, from places like Katz's deli, where he may have been anonymous every time; to places like Daniel or Le Bernardin, where he may never have been.
I used the term illusion because too many restaurants were aware when Bruni or other food critics are in the house so they generally don't dine anonymously anyway. That may not necessarily be the case for a blogger or the critic of a smaller publication. I'm not sure that it makes a huge difference anyway.
Leaving aside whether it's an illusion (I do not think it is), that is more-or-less the standard not just at the Times, but at many major publications that review restaurants.Big news! I grew to admire Bruni as a writer if not so much as a food critic. This will be interesting. I do not know of an obvious choice, esp. as the Times appears to like the illusion of the food critic as anonymous diner.Even the 2/3rds figure (or whatever the percentage is) means that at some point during the visit he eventually was recognized. It is not necessarily the instant he walks in the door, and in most cases they probably do not know in advance that he is coming. Bruni once wrote that during his meals, he often senses a moment, as if a bell had been rung, when everything changes—the moment when they suddenly figure out who he is.
I would say, therefore, that at most restaurants, some portion of his overall experience occurs before he is recognized. And therefore, he is able to fulfill the objective of anonymity, which is to write about how the restaurant treats its non-critic guests.
-
Leaving aside whether it's an illusion (I do not think it is), that is more-or-less the standard not just at the Times, but at many major publications that review restaurants.Big news! I grew to admire Bruni as a writer if not so much as a food critic. This will be interesting. I do not know of an obvious choice, esp. as the Times appears to like the illusion of the food critic as anonymous diner.
There's probably just enough time for Bruni to review it, if he wants to.Too bad for Marea. -
If Bill Keller really means everything he wrote in that farewell love-letter, then presumably they'll be looking for someone just like Bruni. That means it will be someone no one could have predicted—a "food fan" who has practically no history of writing about restaurants.Any guesses who will be next?Almost by definition, if they pick someone predictable, it will mean they are not trying to duplicate their achievement with Bruni.
-
I've been thinking about this a lot. I honestly hope that people do not accept this code, and instead take its presentation as an opportunity to think about ethical issues in their blogging and write their own ethics statement.
My own view is that I do not see a pressing need to declare up-front how I would handle every contingency. My site accepts comments (which I do not delete, unless they are uncivil), and my private e-mail address is also on the site. If someone contacts me via either medium, and says, “You’ve done the wrong thing,” I will make changes if I think they have a valid point (this has happened).
-
It's expensive and the menu is huge. A possible four-star contender?
This restaurant is a three-star candidate, not a four-star candidate. Everything that is known about this place suggests that it is not attempting to provide the coddling and luxury that all of the current four-star restaurants offer. Although clearly not a "cheap eat," it isn't expensive enough to be able to duplicate (or even attempt to duplicate) the level of cooking and presentation at, say, Le Bernardin.
Although Bruni is about as uninterested in traditional luxury as anybody, he has been a stickler for maintaining those amenities—along, of course, with practically flawless cooking—at the four-star level. He has not yet awarded four stars to any restaurant because it was "good, considering the price." He has done that at the two and three-star levels, but not four.
Another problem is that because the menu is so large, it is liable to have some significant soft-spots—practically always the downfall of large menus. Re-read Bruni's review of Del Posto, and you'll see what I mean.
This is not to say that Bruni will dislike Marea. To the contrary, he has taken a shine to Michael White's cooking already at two different restaurants, Alto and Convivio. But by its design this restaurant simply doesn't seem geared to four stars. Had it opened in a better economy, it very well might have been. But I think White and owner Chris Cannon are hedging their bets, and so it is not quite as ambitious as it otherwise could have been.
-
I think there's zero chance that sites like those will display the badge, because most of them are large enough to have their own terms of service. In some cases, those sites already have policies that are very different from those eG has proposed.I just have to say that if y'all can actually get other food sites, in effect, your "competition," to display the eG logo, it will be an utterly brilliant PR move. Have any of the others - say Chowhound, OA, NIAC, Mouthfulsfood, Dallasfood.org, etc., indicated any interest at all?I imagine that some independent bloggers may adopt the code—people like me. For a variety of reasons, I have decided (for now) not to. For the most part, the code describes things that I believe I do anyway. But the argument (if there is one) should be "whether I have done the right thing," not "whether I have conformed to a code written by other people."
-
At Per Se, most parties of two are seated at 4-tops anyway. I have dined there twice in a party of two, and both times I was seated at a 4-top (and observed many others likewise). This was during the era when Per Se routinely sold out 2 months to the day in advance. I think the whole dining room has only two true 2-top tables. They have always assumed that a certain percentage of the 4-tops will be taken by parties of 2, and presumably that percentage has gone up.ARGH! The couple we were going to dine with Saturday night just bailed on us (albeit for a very, very valid reason). I just called, they can not move us to a two-person table (I understand the policy, but hell, it was worth a try)....EDIT:
NEVER MIND!!! They just called, and WE ARE IN FOR TWO! WHEW!
-
It's actually a bit worse than that: some of these dishes have been on the menu from the beginning, month after month. with only minor variations.There was no “rush” in this restaurant. The pace was slow and easy. Quite frankly too slow and easy. It would drive me crazy. When I noticed the cooks familiarity with the menu I asked how often it changed. “Seasonally”. No wonder they looked bored. They’ve been cooking the same menu for weeks and at an agonizingly slow pace.Of course, this attitude towards customers is not unique to Ko. I recall that when Momofuku Noodle Bar was still new, a customer asked David Chang (who was still behind the counter in those days) if he were the chef, and Chang curtly replied, "No." Obviously if that is the owner's attitude, it will spill over to the employees.
-
That will be true only to the extent that the "market place" demands it. Even Fat Guy, who is clearly in favor of these guidelines, seems to doubt that they will be that influential. So do I.My concern is that eGullet, or the young ladies who've published the other code proposal (curious publicity timing just before they release a book, no?) are inadvertently setting themselves up to be a de facto reference standard that will appear to the public to be some sort of official or professional standard that an individual blog is either "living up to" or not. It's irrelevant that neither intends to be that, it's simply whether or not their mere existence creates that impression.Of course, it is worth noting that eGullet and the other site have not made identical proposals. They do intersect in a number of ways, but they also have significant differences. The other site, for instance, argues that a blogger should visit a restaurant at least twice before posting about it. I strenuously disagree with that.
I'm sorry, but this truly is nonsense. A blogger could be sued for defamation only if they have committed an act that the law defines as defamatory. The claim of conforming to the eG Ethics code, even if untrue, is not such an act.Publicly state that you agree to be held to professional standards and just wait for the first restaurateur or chef who gets slammed to decide to sue for defamation or loss of revenue (whether accurate or not) - it's happened to professional food critics, who often have the pockets of a paper behind them to cover legal expenses, and generally win, but how many bloggers could handle that? -
I was sort of joking about the stern lecture. I really don't know what they do, but whatever it is, it works. There is obviously an element of risk, but they seem to control it by limiting the situations in which the cheftestants are seen in public during the season. The event at Blue Hill seems to have been witnessed only by staffers who work at the restaurant or on the farm, and there really weren't all that many culinary students present for the Super Bowl show. As I said, it's not as if they do something out on the city streets, where just anyone can walk by, hold up their cell phone and snap a photo.
Sure they do "something," but seems like there's no way to gaurantee that in a roomfull of culinary students, like in the football challenge, an anonymous internet post about what happened won't occur. They ain't. You could have them all sign an encyclopedia's worth of papers. How would you determine which person in that roomfull, who otherwise have no stake in the show or competition, posted about it? Or in the restaurant challenge. Or at Blue Hill Farms. Or at Natasha Richard's shindig. The only way to ensure what you say they are trying to ensure is to have no outsiders at all. Of course, unless you meant a double secret stern lecture.You will note that those challenges are always under "controlled conditions." I am sure that those who participate are asked to sign confidentiality agreements, or at the very least, are lectured sternly about the importance of preserving the show's element of surprise. I am not sure what they do, but I guarantee it's something, and it seems to work. -
You will note that those challenges are always under "controlled conditions." I am sure that those who participate are asked to sign confidentiality agreements, or at the very least, are lectured sternly about the importance of preserving the show's element of surprise. I am not sure what they do, but I guarantee it's something, and it seems to work.
In nearly every judges table challenge, there are members of the public involved in the events they stage. I would think there would be more danger of leaks when the people involved know exactly what's going on, as opposed to random proles on NYC sidewalks who stop and take a gander.
People on the show have confirmed this: they are pretty much compelled to keep everything indoors or in obscure places, because otherwise it would be pretty clear who was eliminated.I am guessing that sometimes they avoid doing too many things to showcase the city, because those things would be more apt to create spoilers.Now contrast this with, say, holding an event in the middle of Central Park, where any random person can just walk by, snap a cell phone photo, tap something into twitter, and so forth. Under those conditions, it really would be impossible to prevent spoilers from being pretty widely disseminated.
-
This is definitely a tough one, because if you allow people to comment, you also need to invest the time to weed out spam and other inappropriate posts.Does eGullet consider the requirement for reader comments essential to operating an ethical website? -
Obviously there is no set of ethical guidelines that everyone will accept, just as there is no religion or political party that everyone accepts. But I think that it's laudable to see both eGullet and the Food Ethics Blog site drawing attention to a matter that has, until now, skated along without much formal guidance.Oakapple - I don't misunderstand the intent that our "Fat Guy" has - I think it's an honorable proposal for what goes on within eGullet itself, I distrust that it could ever possibly be implemented fairly and honestly on the basis he proposes outside of these "walls". First, your first statement - while it's true, that someone who follows a code of ethics, be it this one, or the one posed over on new Food Ethics Blog site (which came out a week ago now), or someone else's, has those ethics (again, assuming they're not just paying lip service, but actually doing so), it's 1) that set of ethics, not the only set possible (the proposed one here, for example, is different in several ways from the one proposed on the site I mentioned), and 2) how does that make them more ethical than someone who has a higher ethical standard but never happened to hear of eGullet, or one of the others, or chooses to simply not sign their name to a statement?If either one of these guidelines is succesful—that's a big IF—I doubt that there will be many major food bloggers who haven't heard of them. Bloggers will decide for themselves whether these guidelines are worth following—just as people decide whether to be Democrats, Republicans, or neither. Readers will then decide for themselves whether a blog's decision either to adopt or reject one of these codes actually makes any difference.
Oh, sure there is. If you haven't noticed that blogs are getting a lot of media attention, then I have to wonder what you've been reading. At some point, I could imagine that unethical blogs would be called out for censure, just as the Times would be if it turned out that Frank Bruni were accepting free food in exchange for good reviews. Obviously these ethics codes are a damp squib at the moment, since they're brand new. But the idea that they could become influential at some point seems quite reasonable to me. (That doesn't mean it will happen, of course.)Outside of a moderated forum like this, there is no peer pressure or media attention on the average blog/amateur writerFor what it's worth, the eGullet guidelines seem a lot more reasonable to me than those the Food Ethics Blog is proposing, and if I formally adopt anything, it will likely be the former.
-
I do not recall seeing that when I dined there last September. I am pretty sure that I did not leave an additional tip on top of the 20% they had already added.Well, but the problem is that the receipt states: "The 20% service charge is not a gratuity and is not distributed to the service staff but is used to cover the operating and administrative charges."
And I do not recall they said anything to me, either.Also, according to Eater, the restaurant notifies customers of this charge upon confirmation. But I never received a confirmation call. I called the restaurant the day before to confirm and no such disclosure was made.
I believe the price changes according to the cost of ingredients, and what Chef Masa decides to serve. In the go-go days, it could have been changing month to month, or even week to week. We probably wouldn't have been aware of every change, since no one who posts here eats there regularly.By the way, does anyone recall the highest masa ever charged for dinner? I seem to recall that, at its peak, it charged $450. However, the hostess said that it was $600. I don't recall it being quite that high. -
I think you've perhaps misread the intent—or what I take to be the intent. Subscribing to the ethics code has nothing to do with credentials or being worthy of reading. It only has to do with ethics.It's fascinating that anyone thinks that by someone stating that they subscribe to a "code of ethics" (interesting timing, too, on this post, coming less than a week after the controversial "Food Blog Ethics Code" site hit the 'net) and displaying a badge either here or on their own blog or website, that that somehow makes them more credentialed, more ethical, or more worthy of reading.I do think that a blogger or board poster who follows these principles is more ethical than one who does not. That's obviously a broad-brush statement, as some of the principles are more important than others, and not all violations are alike. But in general, it's a pretty good statement of how the job ought to be done.
Qualifications and honesty have nothing to do with one another. The code doesn't prescribe qualifications for blogging at all.The problems with the idea are so obvious that it's ludicrous: 1) anyone who feels like it can make the claim and post the badge, and still be a completely dishonest, unqualified hack....It's true that someone could claim to be following the code while in fact violating it. There is no sure-fire way to prevent dishonesty. But once someone has made an affirmative statement that they're doing something, they're a lot less likely to violate it than if they had never addressed the matter. For those that claim dishonestly to be following it, there is always peer pressure and media attention—at least in the more flagrant cases.
-
People on the show have confirmed this: they are pretty much compelled to keep everything indoors or in obscure places, because otherwise it would be pretty clear who was eliminated.I am guessing that sometimes they avoid doing too many things to showcase the city, because those things would be more apt to create spoilers. -
I have received five fully-comped meals in my capacity as a "food blogger," which is less than 1% of the reviews I've written. In each case, the post-meal blog entry disclosed the circumstances. As long as folks know that the meal was comped, they can decide for themselves whether the review is credible.
Of course, in a comped review, even if you ignore the opinions, there can be useful information—e.g., that the restaurant exists, that so-and-so is the chef, that such-and-such is on the menu, and so forth. (When they comp New York Journal, it usually means that not many folks have heard of the restaurant.)
As some of you may know, I normally rate restaurants on a "star scale" similar to that employed by the Times. I decided that for pre-arranged comps, rare as they are, I would not give out stars based on that meal. I don't think anyone gives a damn about my stars anyway, but it felt like the right way to handle it.
When there's a comped drink or a comped course, within an otherwise paid-for meal, it's harder to state firm rules. I never tell the restaurant that I'm a blogger, but because I take pictures, they may have guessed that. Or they could be sending out the comp for other reasons.
-
First, if you sucked down the entire cocktail list, you'd be dead. Second, which drinks did you try and what makes you a cocktail expert? Now, we all know Ms. Moskin's a food expert, because she cooked everything in Mastering the Art, but has she made every drink in, for instance, Wondrich's Esquire Drinks?By the time you’ve been instructed in how many pieces of bruschetta your group needs ($3 each, $19 for 9), translated all 12 toppings (best: fig mascarpone; worst: broccoli rabe), and evaluated the menu of spiedini (grilled skewers), you will be tempted to suck down the entire cocktail list.But the drinks I tried were oversweetened, and the all-Italian wine list turned out to be a better source of solace.
I think you're being too hard on Ms. Moskin. After all, it is a Dining Brief. She didn't say she sucked down the whole cocktail list, only that you'd be tempted to. It was just a way of saying that, in her opinion, the menu required too much explanation. I am not saying the comment is true—I'd have to dine there to assess that—but I think it is reasonably clear that she is using humor to explain what was wrong, not seriously suggesting that you ingest every cocktail on one visit.
Needless to say, in modern times we have not had a critic who was an expert on every food, every cocktail, and every wine. No one needs to be an expert, or to have made every drink, to say that to their own taste the drinks were too sweet. (To put it differently, if I think something is too sweet, no purported expert is entitled to inform me that I should have liked it.)
Even in longer reviews, the critic practically never lists all of the wines s/he tried.By the way, what wine(s) did you try, and how much did they cost?
That could very well be, but all it tells me is that you tried the same food and had a different reaction to it than she did.Then she dashes off a statement like this:Too many plates rely on fat for flavor: nuts, olive oil, pork and cheese weigh down the menu, and there’s a separate list of fritti, deep-fried items ($8 to 18), that sound better than they are.Well, I don't know how many times we've all heard the mantra that "fat is flavor" and in my opinion, nuts, olive oil, pork and cheese all taste pretty good. Especially they way they're used at 'inoteca.
This wasn't a review. It was a "Brief," which in the Times format is a quick fly-by of restaurants deemed not worthy of a full review—in this case, because it is a near-clone of another restaurant downtown.And by the way, what fritti did she try, and how did they sound better than they were? Can we get a real food critic reviewing the restaurants, please. -
Most media outlets rely, from time to time, on reporting done by others. For instance, the Times might say, "The Wall Street Journal reported that...."
But the Journal has a reputation that can be relied on. That doesn't mean they're always correct, but they're not just a blog written by a twenty-something in pajamas. In the modern blogging world, just about anything can be "blogged," and other bloggers will pick it up without running their own fact check.
Momofuku Ko (Part 2)
in New York: Dining
Posted
In my view (blog post here), Ko is the best shot to get four stars in the three months Bruni has left to him. Ulterior Epicure asked, "What has changed?" The main thing is that Chang introduced a new lunch menu that (by all reports) is much more ambitious than the dinner menu that Bruni reviewed. If Chang has cleaned up the inconsistency that Bruni complained of in his original review, that could be justification sufficient to bump Ko up to four stars. There certainly are precedents for re-reviewing a restaurant this soon.
I think Leventhal's premise is correct. The current gap between new four-star restaurants—4½ years and counting—is by far the longest in NYT history. Awarding four stars is a signature moment for a critic, and one that he has largely been denied. He's got to be itching to pull the trigger, though I think he has enough integrity to hold his fire unless he really finds a place that is deserving. (Otherwise, he could have just given four stars to Del Posto or Bouley, and have been done with it.)
For now, I think Eleven Madison and Del Posto are out of the running, because he had a blog post about them in December, and strongly suggested that neither one is four-star material. I believe the new Aureole won't be open till June, which means Bruni probably won't have time to fully assess it—even if it would otherwise be a candidate. It is worth noting that the current incarnation of Aureole carries only two stars.